I saw Life of Pi in the theater in 3D. I am ambivalent about the film. Ang Lee's visuals and special effects were stunning, perhaps the best I have seen anywhere. At the end of the day, it had told a story that was both interesting and moving. The trouble, though, was getting there. I thought the storytelling lagged until the last 20 percent of the film when it hit its stride and was really good. Anyway, despite its several wonderfully well done elements, I thought it took too long to get to the point so I gave it 7 Stars out of 10. I have no particular interest in seeing it again on BD.

Can't disagree.
It is a fine little movie, but not one of the Top 5 for the year, IMO.

I saw Life of Pi in the theater in 3D. I am ambivalent about the film. Ang Lee's visuals and special effects were stunning, perhaps the best I have seen anywhere. At the end of the day, it had told a story that was both interesting and moving. The trouble, though, was getting there. I thought the storytelling lagged until the last 20 percent of the film when it hit its stride and was really good. Anyway, despite its several wonderfully well done elements, I thought it took too long to get to the point so I gave it 7 Stars out of 10. I have no particular interest in seeing it again on BD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oink

Can't disagree.
It is a fine little movie, but not one of the Top 5 for the year, IMO.

agree with both of you. good but not great film. the storyline was not all that compelling to me.

still trying to figure out how ang lee won best director given the flaws in the film.

I was as puzzled by Ang Lee winning the Best Director Oscar as I was that Ben Affleck didn't even get nominated, which is to say, thunderstruck. Nevertheless, I am inclined to conclude that both were caused by bad judgment, not politics. In fairness to the Academy as a whole, its Director's Wing hamstrung the voters by passing over Affleck, Kathryn Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty), and Tom Hooper (Les Misérables) for Best Director nominations, although all would have been worthy contenders. The Directors Wing made matters worse by nominating Michael Haneke (Amour) and Benh Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild, although neither had the slightest chance of winning and it seems to me shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. Sometimes s*it just happens in the Oscars sweepstakes.

I was as puzzled by Ang Lee winning the Best Director Oscar as I was that Ben Affleck didn't even get nominated, which is to say, thunderstruck. Nevertheless, I am inclined to conclude that both were caused by bad judgment, not politics. In fairness to the Academy as a whole, its Director's Wing hamstrung the voters by passing over Affleck, Kathryn Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty), and Tom Hooper (Les Misérables) for Best Director nominations, although all would have been worthy contenders. The Directors Wing made matters worse by nominating Michael Haneke (Amour) and Benh Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild, although neither had the slightest chance of winning and it seems to me shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. Sometimes s*it just happens in the Oscars sweepstakes.

Aaaaand, that's why I don't watch awards shows anymore. I know I miss some good stuff, but figure I save myself some blood pressure problems.

The Emmy's used to make me want to smash my television. That's bad enough, but smashing my projector over movie awards is a really bad idea.

I still watch the Oscars and the Tonys but nothing else. As flawed as the Oscar selection process is, it seems to always come up with winners who are at least reasonably deserving. I can even make an argument for Ang Lee's Best Director Oscar because of the stunning beauty of his highly imaginative Life of Pi. I like the Tonys because the big production numbers from current musicals are always terrific. This year one of them was from Book of Mormon and it was a hoot. I agree with you that the Emmys are ridiculous, which is why I don't watch them either.

I was as puzzled by Ang Lee winning the Best Director Oscar as I was that Ben Affleck didn't even get nominated, which is to say, thunderstruck. Nevertheless, I am inclined to conclude that both were caused by bad judgment, not politics. In fairness to the Academy as a whole, its Director's Wing hamstrung the voters by passing over Affleck, Kathryn Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty), and Tom Hooper (Les Misérables) for Best Director nominations, although all would have been worthy contenders. The Directors Wing made matters worse by nominating Michael Haneke (Amour) and Benh Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild, although neither had the slightest chance of winning and it seems to me shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. Sometimes s*it just happens in the Oscars sweepstakes.

yep, as we discussed, i thought the direction in zero dark, argo, and silver linings was superior to life of pi.

the former two maintained taut storytelling which pi did not exceed in.
the latter required real artistic balance to keep from tumbling down to a mediocre genre romcom.

The problem with award shows is the selection process bypasses me....
I have more faith in my fellow AVSers' judgements than the people in faraway lands.

Usually I think you're an over-privileged drunken idiot who posts here only in the few seconds he has when he runs away from the "men in white uniforms" to the computer down the hall, but in this case I agree with you.

Usually I think you're an over-privileged drunken idiot who posts here only in the few seconds he has when he runs away from the "men in white uniforms" to the computer down the hall, but in this case I agree with you.

There have been quite a bit of controversy over whether is was right to give an Oscar for best cinematography to Claudio Miranda, the DP for Life of PI, when 90% of the movie was created by the VFX artists in the company Rhythm + Hues, and that Claudio Miranda didn't even mention or credit the VFX house in his acceptance speech.

There have been quite a bit of controversy over whether is was right to give an Oscar for best cinematography to Claudio Miranda, the DP for Life of PI, when 90% of the movie was created by the VFX artists

I had the same complaint when Avatar won the Cinematography Oscar. What cinematography?!

There have been quite a bit of controversy over whether is was right to give an Oscar for best cinematography to Claudio Miranda, the DP for Life of PI, when 90% of the movie was created by the VFX artists in the company Rhythm + Hues, and that Claudio Miranda didn't even mention or credit the VFX house in his acceptance speech.

wow so I read all 3 of the links and that's not cool at all what went down with FVX artists and those involved in the grunt work responsible for the images of Pi. That's a shame and black eye to the cinematography sector. But what's really perplexing is that Ang Lee isn't Jewish or anything so how did he end up with an Oscar for best director?

Yet one the best cinematographers like Chris 'Doyle never got Jack for real awesome cinematography with Ashes of Time, Hero, Flowers of war and HOFD.

wow so I read all 3 of the links and that's not cool at all what went down with FVX artists and those involved in the grunt work responsible for the images of Pi. That's a shame and black eye to the cinematography sector. But what's really perplexing is that Ang Lee isn't Jewish or anything so how did he end up with an Oscar for best director?

Yet one the best cinematographers like Chris 'Doyle never got Jack for real awesome cinematography with Ashes of Time, Hero, Flowers of war and HOFD.

I suppose I get your 'Jewish' reference but James Wong Howe, who was nominated 10 times and won twice for cinematography, probably wasn't Jewish either...

There have been quite a bit of controversy over whether is was right to give an Oscar for best cinematography to Claudio Miranda, the DP for Life of PI, when 90% of the movie was created by the VFX artists in the company Rhythm + Hues, and that Claudio Miranda didn't even mention or credit the VFX house in his acceptance speech.

A very entertaining read. Doyle seems like quite a character. However, I'm certainly puzzled by his singling out of himself and Anthony Dod Mantle as cinematography purists. Mantle's photography for 127 Hours had some of the most disgusting digital color grading that I've ever seen. The whole movie had practically no other colors than teal or orange. This is exactly the sort of thing that Doyle rants about.

Also, based on his recent IMDb credits, even Doyle is shooting in digital these days.

I wish Christopher Doyle directed some of his passion towards a rescan of "Hero" for a excellent image quality BD re-release and a future 4K release.

If you think about it, ..there is NOT a single film since the beginning of time that was ever shot so colorful and vibrant coupled with mesmerizing landscape scenery as Hero. Every frame what was shot looked like a hallmark post card or travel brochure. Hero in 4K would be indescribable.

A very entertaining read. Doyle seems like quite a character. However, I'm certainly puzzled by his singling out of himself and Anthony Dod Mantle as cinematography purists. Mantle's photography for 127 Hours had some of the most disgusting digital color grading that I've ever seen. The whole movie had practically no other colors than teal or orange. This is exactly the sort of thing that Doyle rants about.

Also, based on his recent IMDb credits, even Doyle is shooting in digital these days.

The bottom line is you have to take what these guys say with a grain of salt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolscan

I wish Christopher Doyle directed some of his passion towards a rescan of "Hero" for a excellent image quality BD re-release and a future 4K release.